|
|
|||||||
| IL-2 Sturmovik The famous combat flight simulator. |
| View Poll Results: do you know flugwerk company a her real one fockewulf a8? | |||
| yes |
   
|
2 | 33.33% |
| no |
  
|
4 | 66.67% |
| Voters: 6. You may not vote on this poll | |||
 |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#131
11-11-2012, 05:55 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Well, I'm just pretty sure no pilot flying ANY PLANE would have ever wanted to enter a prolonged turning fight with any fighter, if they had alternatives... Quote:
To be sure, I personally think IL-2 does not sufficiently model the control forces required to maneuver at high speeds. An FW-190 would very likely out-turn a Bf-109 if the pilot in 109 could not use full control deflection due to excessive control forces. Same applies to P-51. Additionally in the Bf-109 we can use both the trim wheel and flaps fast and with no difficulty; I would love to see the octopus pilot that can juggle all that in combat. The flaps in 109 were very slow to actuate and fully manual - you turn a wheel in cockpit and the flaps go down, you couldn't really actually use "combat flaps" as a quick decision - you would have to set combat flaps position before hard maneuvering. The pilot makes an incredible difference in these birds. Especially in Bf-109 where not only pilot's skill but physical constitution and strength would definitely affect the aircraft's turn performance at high speeds. Just as A6M would roll better when pilot could exert higher force on the control column. Every virtual pilot has identical strength to move the controls, when comparing two pilots in two identical planes. Whether that strength remains constant from plane to plane is anyone's guess. The actual physics of the matter are not exactly up for debate, though. The comparative weighs, lift capabilities of the wings, thrust from the propeller... all these factors are well documented and can be modeled quite well, physical testing notwithstanding. Fact of the matter is that the 109 had lower wing loading, better thrust-to-weight ratio, and very similar wing chord profile as the FW-190. That means at similar airspeed and angle of attack, the Bf-109 wing would be able to produce better centripetal acceleration, reducing in better turn rate and (at same airspeed) smaller turn radius. To me that tells that when flown to their capabilities the 109 would probably have no problems out-turning FW-190 in a prolonged horizontal plane turning fight, and moreover would have no problems controlling the engagement in vertical plane due to better turn rate. The FW-190 pilot would be insane to offer such fight when the plane is faster anyway (at low to medium altitudes). Last edited by Herra Tohtori; 11-11-2012 at 06:19 PM. |
|
#132
11-11-2012, 07:32 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Stall speed shapes the low speed limits of flight and maneuver. Those stall speeds are historical qualified and quantified facts, not unqualified comments or unsupported opinions taken further for an agenda.
Of course you can always bring up "stress risers" again, or find some other fake buzz word to crank that cracked theory along. 15 years of playing with words and discounting everything that says the 190 wasn't a great stall-fighter vs people who model the planes based on REAL parameters and full educations in aerodynamics who say different. Hmmmm, boy, ain't dot tricky eh? |
|
#133
11-11-2012, 08:34 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ah! it's good to have all back again...
As we've settled down to the aerodynamic theorists, who professes to know everything, and the pilot who experiences everything.... Is there any pilot report that can explain the different facts explicitly - probably not. On the other hand is there any aerodynamic 'theorist' who has explicit flight knowledge of the aircraft in question - Zippo  So who are we to trust in this scenario - I'll take pilot experience any day, tempered with a bit of common sense The biggest difference on all aircraft designs was that Kurt Tank, was a pilot, beside FW190 design engineer..  Yup.. I'll still stick with Gaston's theory
__________________
Last edited by K_Freddie; 11-11-2012 at 08:43 PM. |
|
#134
11-11-2012, 11:17 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
As for your 15 years of research I don't believe a word of it. Please take up the challange I have given you a number of times. If you can prove your point using the evidence you claim then you have some credibility, without it you have none. You can of course supply the British tests which say what you say :- That's it for my fifteen years of research... British RAE tests unequivocally state the FW-190A turns far better than the Me-109G, which Me-109G is out-turned by a P-51B with full drop tanks, while the same P-51 cannot out-turn the FW-190A even when clean... It seems the Me-109G is badly short-changed here (it has only a slight disadvantage to, occasionally, a perfect sustained turn parity to the P-51B in actual battles), and this, to my mind, just shows how unreliable these non-combat side-by-side tests can be... I say this as you have considerable form for saying things that are not supported and as a result are not true. |
|
#135
11-12-2012, 04:23 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#136
11-12-2012, 10:50 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
The pilot who experiences everything... LOL! What poetry! What utter nonsense!
What's behind stall and low speed turning is well within demonstrated facts. It's something that -all- those pilots had to learn right at the start. If you don't think so, find an old ground school manual. If you want to quibble 2 or 3 places past the decimal and offhand say that makes aerodynamics knowledge of flight less than that of not a combat pilot but of some non-pilot, crap-math-and-science gamer's interpretation of what the combat pilot wrote as an after-action report or war story then go ahead if it lets you feel better about yourself but you're wrong. |
|
#137
11-12-2012, 05:18 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Herra is making a good point about control stiffness in certain flight configurations.
There is also the issue of G load on the capacity to effect the controls as your limbs are pulled in another direction. High G load sustained turns will tire the pilot out and make him dizzy. Maybe a Spitfire pilot who just escaped a couple of passes by a 190 through pulling as hard as he could on the stick will be tired out. Maybe the 190 pilot would notice that the turns are not as sharp any more and now easily turn with him. Nothing to do with actual Aircraft performance, though. Just my tuppence. |
|
#138
11-13-2012, 02:02 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
So, aerodynamic maths explain 100% of flight, a 100% of the time and the pilot's always wrong, according to the 'propellor head' on the ground.
You sound like an aircraft crash investigator out to needle the pilot, as they usually do. Not that they always wrong, but they not always right and in this situation not likely to accept this.
__________________
|
|
#140
11-13-2012, 04:10 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I was thinking up to 10%, which is why I'll allow Gaston's argument.
I'm well aware of the manuals and their contents, the pilot errors, etc... While not being a Mech/Aerodynamic engineer, I do work in the engineering field.. some 34 years of it, some on aircraft and some pilot time. So I am no stranger theory, formulae and modelling.. as well as the practical side, plus all the goodies that go with it. Putting this all together, I'm not going to rule out Gaston 100%.
__________________
|
|
|
|
Linear Mode
